Why you ask? Your fellow supporters are getting arrested; they need to demand a jury trial (back up the system) so they can speak in front of the Grand Jury (that would be YOU) to announce themselves as fellow protesters for the 99% because of the final reason....

Because hear is evidence that even the UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM is privately traded on the STOCK MARKET, ooohhhhh?!?

Dun & Bradstreet (NYSE: DNB) is a Fortune 500 public company headquartered in Short Hills, New Jersey, USA that provides information on businesses and corporations for use in credit decisions, B2B marketing and supply chain management. Often referred to as D&B, the company maintains information about more than 150 million companies worldwide. [WIKIPIDIA]

As a member of the Grand Jury you are required to vote based on your conscience; and would your allow you to prosecute (abuse) your neighbor who fights for your rights? I couldn't. I would Vote 'NO BILL" and dismiss any case that didn't have an actual victim, for me no victim means no crime, NO BILL...

When this makes the News of all occupiers OCCUPY the GRAND JURIES; I will give you step 2. ps: it includes a mass revoking of voter registrations, no voters means no elections...

social security account numbers have a second link on the back of the card in the nine digit red number that traces through the united nations after passing through the department of commerce. It is also not needed to live and work in the united states either according to a letter from the commissioner of the social security administration. Will you volunteer for Grand Jury and help the movement from inside the courts?

This works in every State of the Union; all 50 States have Grand Juries within the Supreme Court. Tell all your friends all about; and send them the link for Fully Informed Jury Association because we need help from the source. The source is found on the most powerful branch of the Government, The Grand Jury.

Went to the Supreme Court; complained I have not received a notice to serve; they put me in the system; they say I'll be receiving my notice in a few days. OCCUPY WALL STREET

NOW OCCUPIES THE GRAND JURY!

QUOTATIONS RELATING TO JURY VETO POWER

John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, in Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794:4 said: “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”


Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Paine, 1789: “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”


“In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.” Article XXIII, Constitution of Maryland.


“If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence…If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.” United States v. Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006.


The jury has an “unreviewable and irreversible power…to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge…The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.” U.S. v. Dougherty, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972, 473 F.2d at 1130 and 1132. Note: the majority opinion held that jurors need not be told this. Dissenting Chief Judge Bazelon thought that they ought to be told.

“…The right of the jury to decide questions of law was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judge’s instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles:

‘It is not only…[the juror’s] right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.’

There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle in the period immediately after the Constitution was adopted.” Note (anon.), The Changing Role of the Jury in the Nineteenth Century, Yale Law Journal 74, 173 (1964).


“During the first third of the Nineteenth century,…judges frequently charged juries that they were the judges of law as well as the fact and were not bound by the judge’s instructions. A charge that the jury had the right to consider the law had a corollary at the level of trial procedure: counsel had the right to argue the law—its interpretation and its validity—to the jury.” Note (anon.), The Changing Role of the Jury in the Nineteenth Century, Yale Law Journal 74, 174, (1964).


“The arguments for opposing the nullification instruction are, in our view, deficient because they fail to weigh the political advantages gained by not lying to the jury…What impact will this deception have on jurors who felt coerced into their verdict by the judge’s instructions and who learn, after trial, that they could have voted their consciences and acquitted? Such a juror is less apt to respect the legal system.” Alan Scheflin and Jon VanDyke, “Jury Nullification: the Contours of a Controversy,” Law and Contemporary Problems, 43, No.4, 105-106. (1980)